Top 10 People of the 20th Century You Never Knew

Or might not have known. In their circles, these people are demigods. Most people know them as well as they know this blog. But these people shaped our world. Read up on them. They are fascinating, and prove the point that individuals can make a big difference.

1. Philo T. Farnsworth
You know who invented the telegraph, the lightbulb, the telephone. But Farnsworth invented something that you are looking at now, the television. (How to do it hit him when he was a 13 year old farm boy in Idaho.) He also invented the Farnsworth Fusor, a technology for nuclear fusion that Dr. Robert Bussard, mentioned in the previous post, is basically perfecting. If Bussard's work comes to fruition, Farnsworth's life's work could be remembered as what brought humanity together, and saved it from itself. When he died, he was considered to be one of the top 10 mathematical minds on the planet.

2. Ralph Bunche
Another American genius, he made his mark in international diplomacy. He was the first African-American to win a Nobel Peace Prize, in 1950, before the civil rights movement started. What he won it for was even more astounding: he was the first, and to date, the only man to get Israel and all the Arab states to sit down and sign a peace agreement. Picked by President Harry Truman to be his Assistant Secretary of State, he turned down what would have been the highest office ever before held by a man of color as a protest against the Jim Crow laws in Washington D.C. Instead, he went to the U.N., whose charter he helped to draft, where he played the leading role in global de-colonization. He later played a large role in the civil rights movement.

3. Grace Hopper
The inventor of the computer compiler, she is one of the original pioneers of the electronic computer. A great mathematician, she joined the U.S Navy in WWII after a stint as an associate professor at Vassar. There she became one of the leading minds behind the Mark I, II and III Calculators, the UNIVAC I, the COBOL programming language, and FORTRAN. She eventually became a Rear Admiral, and now has a ship named in her honor, the USS Hopper.

4. Rosalind Franklin
One thing about the Nobel Prize is that it is not awarded posthumously. Crick and Watson were the guys who took the credit for figuring out DNA and the secret of life, but they didn't until they saw the x-ray images Franklin was taking of DNA's structure. While the guys were getting the headlines, Franklin was dying of cancer, likely caused by her experiments. They gave her no credit.

5. Hannes Alfven
Pioneer in magnetohydrodynamics (for which he won the Nobel Prize in 1970), and considered by many to be the father of plasma physics, his work extends into many realms. From the use of plasma to make computer chips to describing the very nature of the universe, his research continues to grow in its importance. Alfven's work lies at the core of the efforts of the Focus Fusion project. He was ahead of his time, and much of his work is still in the process of flowering.

6. Gerhard Domagk
The medical profession before the invention of antibiotics was half-science and half-wishful thinking. Much of why the family doctor made house calls was just to express support for the sick and dying. A cut on a toe could mean the loss of a leg, or your life. Now, people expect to live into their 80's and die of heart disease and cancer, and doctors are expected to work miracles. Gerhard Domagk was the lead man in the development of sulfa drugs, the first successful antibiotics. A researcher for German megacorporation I.G. Farben, in its Bayer division (yes, the aspirin), he tested thousands of chemicals before finding the one that worked. He was awarded a Nobel Prize in 1939 for his work, but Hitler wouldn't let him accept it. It wasn't until 1946 that he received his honor, around the time that penicillin began to overtake sulfa as the antibiotic of choice. Domagk, by introducing antibiotics, probably has saved more lives than Hitler took.

7. Charles Wilson
A U.S. Representative of ill repute, he was known as "Good Time Charlie" by the press and his enemies. However, when he discovered the plight of the Afghanis in their otherwise-doomed resistance against Soviet invasion, he used his influence in Congress and connections in the Middle East to engineer a secret three-way alliance between Pakistan, Saudia Arabia, and the United States that eventually drove out the Soviet Union, led to the dismantling of the USSR, and won the Cold War for the U.S. and the West. While this allowed for an increase in Middle Eastern tensions, and led to 9/11 and the War on Terror, it also ended 40 years of living in nuclear fear for Earth's citizens.

8. Douglas Engelbart
Like that mouse you are using? What about that web browser with its links? How about your email, and chat, and video conferencing? It all sounds so modern, doesn't it? Douglas Engelbart was doing all of this in 1969, using a networked computer system he developed called the On-Line System (NLS). He made the first mouse, he invented hyperlinking, computer-aided video conferencing, and the first collaborative work applications for computers. He saw the future, and made it happen 30 years before most people got to have it. Hard to believe, but it is true. Look it up.

9. Gordon Gould
Gordon Gould invented the laser, one of the most important inventions ever. After conceiving it in 1957, he tried to get money to develop a prototype so he could patent it. Eventually he turned to the Department of Defense, which decided to grant him the funds for the project. It was then that they found out that his ex-wife was a Marxist, and kicked him off his own research project. From that point on, he fought with the DoD and Hughes Aircraft for years until he finally won the patent in 1986 at the age of 67.

10. Leo Baekeland
He invented the first synthetic polymer, Bakelite, in 1907. This lead to the world of plastics we have today. As the commercials say, what would life be without plastic?

The Next Big Thing

Been a while since I've posted. If you have read the last humongous post, you will have an idea about fusion, particularly aneutronic fusion, and its potential role in humanity's future at all levels. Well, since my little essay, things have gotten more interesting.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1996321846673788606

This is a link to a Google TechTalk, where Google invites geniuses from various fields to talk about the latest stuff to other geniuses at Google. This one is given by Dr. Robert Bussard (former Assistant Secretary of the Department of Energy, former head of Los Alamos National Laboratory, and the guy who invented the Bussard Ramjet), who speaks of a clandestine project he worked on at the Dept. of Defense. What he was working on was a aneutronic fusion reactor for the Navy. When his project was cut by the Congress due to budget shortfalls (Iraq), he and his team had just achieved success, and now it is looking for investors in the private sector to perfect and commercialize the technology.

This is big. A few million dollars on investment could make it happen. A few million dollars is pocket change to Google, who is rapidly becoming one of the biggest energy customers in the US. (Think of all those data centers they are building near powerplants.) They certainly would have the motivation.

Speaking of a few million dollars changing the world, here is another link.

http://focusfusion.org/log/index.php/site/article/lpp_announces_first_focus_fusion_licensing_agreement/

The guys who I mentioned in my previous post just signed an agreement to license focus fusion technology to a joint in Sweden. They are getting a big first installment, and $10 million in total, which basically gives them all the money they need for their research budget. This means that focus fusion will have its day in the sun, assuming that all goes well. If Bussard doesn't beat them first.

I don't really care who wins (perhaps they both will). I just want it to happen.

How To Win The War On Terror, Save The World, and Look Cool While You Do It

Is the 21st Century going to mark the end of civilization?

(If you are a new reader of this blog, now is a good time for you to scroll down, and read everything else I have written so far. You need some back story for this, and it is worth it, to understand this lengthy discussion.)

So far, I have drawn a lot of dots on this blog. Differences in cultures, definitions of terrorism, freedom, happiness, economies, democracy, science, our global connectedness. I have also pointed out how we as humans ignore what is before our eyes because it doesn't fit our world-view, and despite the fact that we would be better for it, we tend to cling to old modes of thinking long after they lose their validity. Now I wish to connect some of these dots, and open your mind to a few new concepts.

One of the points I made earlier was that the problems we face today are caused by the solutions of problems we faced in the past. So, what exactly are we facing? Let's list a few root problems.

- Global Warming & Global Dimming
- The balkanization of the world in the post-Cold War era
- The rise of China's and India's economies without a commensurate rise in resources
- The looming collapse of the ocean's ecosystem
- The ever-increasing population of humans

Now let's draw some lines and put together a list of emergent, or secondary, problems these factors create.

- The calamitous rise of oceanic water levels by century's end
- The start of (at least) another "Little Ice Age"
- The looming oil crisis, as demand will vastly outstrip supply very soon
- Islamic Fundamentalist terrorism, and continued instability in the Middle East
- Increased militarism in China, and possibly India
- Increased attempts at creating "utopian" dictatorships in less-developed countries
- Increased use of fission as a power source, thus enhancing the spread of nuclear weapons
- The repolarization of world politics, and a new Cold War (perhaps a new full blown World War)
- Widespread starvation, death, and ecological destruction like we have never witnessed

Feeling happy? Sounds pretty bad, I know. I think it is so bad that some wish not to believe in any of it, and try to take solace in God, saying that He would never let something like this come to pass. I think that the current US President has this view. However, if there is a God, he has never saved us from our self-inflicted calamities before. I don't think he will do so now.

Instead, we need to solve this problem ourselves, and, oddly enough, the solution may already be on its way. It could use your help, however.

As you may have noticed, I have a lot of interests. One of them is physics, in particular, nuclear energy. When we think of nuclear energy, it usually conjures up visions of atomic bombs and Chernobyl. This nuclear energy is based on fission, the dividing of uranium or plutonium atoms and releasing energy by annihilating a small piece of the original atom's matter. Except in France, the track record isn't too hot for fission. While there really hasn't been but one major, death-dealing accident, nuclear fission needs a special type of reactor called a "breeder reactor" to make it a viable, long-term energy source. These breeder reactors are really good at making weapons-grade plutonium, which makes the world less safe. Without them, however, uranium supplies on Earth are too small to last even a century of heavy use.

There is another form of nuclear energy called fusion, where light atoms are joined to create larger ones, releasing energy by annihilating some matter in the process. We are all familiar with it, as it powers the Sun. We humans have been doing fusion since the mid-20th century, and it is where thermonuclear bombs get their "big bang." Fusion, you might think, is a much more dangerous prospect than fission, given that it makes a more powerful bomb. Actually, fusion is quite hard to do. The "fusion" bomb has to use the energy of a fission bomb to detonate. A fusion reactor, if it goes out of control, doesn't melt down or blow up. It just stops. Also, fusion uses fuels that are way more common than uranium or even oil, and makes much less pollution and radiation.

So, why aren't we using it? The problem is that we haven't figured out how to make it create a steady, controlled stream of energy that gives us more energy than we put in to make it. You have to get the atoms to squeeze together, and, traditionally this has meant using a big metal donut called a tokamak, which is surrounded by lots of ultra-powerful electromagnets to create a containment bottle for the super-hot fuel, and uses high-powered lasers to get the fusion started and to keep it going. This takes up so much energy that it uses more than what you get from the fusion reaction, and it also makes it very expensive to attempt. Fusion hasn't had a lot of success. This may soon change, because of a research project that few people have ever heard of, using a technology that has been around for a long while.

In 1964, in both the US and the Soviet Union, independent researchers came across an odd phenomenon. If you took a metal tube, put a smaller one in the middle of it, electrically charged one positively and the other negatively, a ring of lightening, or more accurately, plasma filaments, would form inside the space between the tubes and rise to the top of it. (Ever see one of those weird gadgets with two wires that look like TV antennas, that has an electrical spark traveling up it in a Frankenstein movie? That spark is a plasma filament. Use two tubes, one inside the other, instead of wires, and you can make a ring of filaments.) Once at the end, the plasma filaments would twist around each other and shrink, momentarily forming a tiny object called a plasmoid. This plasmoid was seen to be a naturally-forming magnetic containment bubble, like one in a tokamak, minus the expensive, energy-eating electromagnets. It was theorized that, as it shrunk, it would force atoms in it to fuse together. This device was called the Dense Plasma Focus (DPF).

The problem was that, to get the fusion to occur, you needed to pour in a lot of energy into it to get it to make plasmoids that would ignite fusible fuel, and there was a lot of conjecture as to how or whether it would work. A few researchers in the 60's and '70's played around with it, but not much work was done. Then in 1986, a physicist by the name of Eric Lerner published the first quantitative theory of the DPF and the plasmoid, using the theory to successfully model quasars. He then went on to predict performance of various fuels for fusion with the DPF.

You see, there are lots of materials that can be used in fusion. We like to think that nuclear energy needs radioactive stuff to work. Uranium and plutonium are radioactive, right? Well, normal matter, in the right mixes and conditions, will fuse. What Lerner realized is that the DPF would be a great platform for fusing a particular kind of fuel that uses normal hydrogen and normal boron, often called proton-boron fuel. This fuel produces no nuclear waste, and comparatively little radiation. To top it all off, the components of the fuel, hydrogen and boron, are so common on Earth that we have literally billions of years worth of fuel. Think of that for a second. A clean source of electrical energy that can be used anywhere (even on cloudy or windless days) that we would practically never run out of? That is the biggest gold mine in history. No more fossil fuels. No more oil barons and sheiks. No more greenhouse gasses or smog. No more hot days. No more cold nights. No more reason for thirst, hunger, or poverty (beyond keeping-up-with-the-Jones's style poverty).

The problem with it was that you needed to heat it to a temperature higher than man had ever achieved, and the magnetic field of the containment bottle had to be in the giga-gauss range (thats a billion times the magnetic force of the Earth). There is also this phenomenon called bremstralung, which bleeds energy from fusion reactions in the form of x-ray radiation. Bremstralung has killed many a good idea in fusion, and there was no reason why it wouldn't kill plasma focus fusion.

Needless to say, most scientists were skeptical that it would work. But Lerner kept at it, continuing his research at a small company he formed called Lawrenceville Plasma Physics (LPP). Despite funding cuts after the end of the Cold War, he continued to study the problems of getting the DPF to fuse proton-boron fuel. Experiments done in 1994 at the University of Illinois proved much of his basic theories, which in turn got the attention of NASA and JPL. In the '90's, NASA began a project called the Breakthrough Propusion Project, which tried to see if current ideas in physics could lead to more advanced engines for spacecraft. Lerner, realizing that the DPF could be the basis for a fusion impulse drive ala Star Trek, sent in his proposal, and was given a grant. At this point, research boomed, and in 2001 came a breakthrough. A team of physicists, lead by Lerner, at Texas A&M University, achieved a temperature of 1.1 billion degrees using a DPF, at the time the hottest temperature known to man (hotter than the core of the Sun), and hot enough to burn proton-boron fuel. Lerner developed a theory called the Magnetic Field Effect to compensate for bremstralung, and further testing showed that they could achieve plasmoids with 0.4 giga-gauss. Lerner was getting close to his goal.

Then, after 9/11, NASA had its budget cut, and the Breakthrough Propulsion project died, leaving Lerner and his colleagues stranded. Also, when they wrote a paper on their research, one of the physicists, Dr. Hank Oona, who worked for the Los Alamos National Laboratory, was threatened with his job if he signed onto the paper. The other physicists backed away from the paper, for fear of similar backlash. Some say it is because Lerner has scientific issues with the current Big Bang theory, and this has made him enemies in the physics world. Some say that focus fusion was coming too close to putting oil men like George W. Bush and his friends out of a job. Either way, the group of researchers working on focus fusion had only the leftovers of their grant money to continue with. They went looking for other benefactors.

They found one in the Chilean Nuclear Energy Commission (CCHEN). CCHEN formed a four-man team lead by Dr. Leopoldo Soto to continue the research began at Texas A & M and are working on it to this day. The government of Chile has put a million dollars into the project, no small sum for an average-sized South American country. But another $700,000 must be raised by LPP and its non-profit arm, the Focus Fusion Society.

I stumbled onto their website, www.focusfusion.org, several months ago, when on a search for the latest happenings in fusion energy. What I read there was amazing, as much for the quality of their science as the unbelievability that the US government wouldn't give them the small amount of funds needed to fulfill the goals of the project. The Focus Fusion Society is trying to garner donations, and perhaps find investors willing to fund the project to completion. They currently estimate that they will create the first commercial-grade fusion power plant on Earth in about six years from now. To give you some perspective, the ITER tokamak project, being funded in the billions by the US, China, Japan, France, Great Britain, Italy and others, estimates that they won't have a working reactor for 50 years.

So, assuming that I have peaked your interest, and you go to focusfusion.org, and, along with many others, give them a few bucks, what happens if the Focus Fusion guys reach their goal on time? What are the implications?

Well, I have already listed a few. Clean, non-pollutant fuel that doesn't need steady wind or steady sunlight, not to mention acres of land like solar and wind needs. But let me give you a full breakdown before you go to the website.

Focus fusion makes electricity directly. Coal, oil, and fission make it indirectly by heating water into steam, which then drives a turbine to create energy. Focus fusion takes a hydrogen atom (a proton) and a boron atom, and makes 3 helium ions out of them (plus a lot of x-rays). These ions are positively charged, and, once ran through a transformer, you get pure electricity. The x-rays are also captured by modified solar panels, and they give out electricity too. The total efficiency of focus fusion is around 90%. The best fossil fuel plants get 40%. When you tie in the fact that a garage-sized 5 MW fusion plant only uses 12 kg of fuel in a year, and with no steam turbines or teams of people needed to run it, the electricity that comes from a fusion plant is estimated to cost 100x less to make than current technologies.

100x less! I paid about $200 for my electric bill last month. That would mean it would go down to $2, which is too cheap to meter. Even with taxes and infrastructure costs, electricity could be cheaper than water is now, in a focus fusion world.

When energy is unlimited and practically free, you can do things that now are unimaginable. Water desalinization, advanced farming and soil reclamation, new transportation technologies, you name it. Poverty and hunger would only exist because of a lack of human will. The oil-rich yet politically-moribund nations would have to stop sucking from other countries to prop up their kingdoms and dictatorships. Islamic Fundamentalists would no longer have money nor status with their believers. And best of all, all the pollution from fossil fuels and nuclear waste would cease, clearing our skies and drastically brightening our children's futures. Quite simply, it would save us, if it happens. I believe it can, but will it? There is only one way to know, and that is to help the project finish its work. So, please, go check out the website, and make your own decision. And buy a t-shirt. I designed them, as a donation.

UPDATE: CafePress has donated a free Premium Store to the Focus Fusion Society to have for earning money. This will allow them to make black t-shirts as well as having a custom front-end to it. Because of this, I have to make some new designs, and the web dev's have to put together a new site, so it'll be a few before you can get a shirt. I will post when it is ready. If you have a good idea for a shirt design, join the focusfusion.org site and look in the forums for the t-shirt design thread.

When Your Argument Is Lost

Is terrorism really a threat?

In World War II, the Empire of Japan got to a point where it saw it was going to lose. This wasn't easy to take, as Japan had not lost to an outside aggressor for centuries. A defining national moment was when Japan fought off the Mongols led by Kublai Khan in the late 13th century. There, with the help of a typhoon called by the Japanese "divine winds," or kamikaze, the Japanese set into its national character the concept that no outsider could best them. Well, the United States, a nation who had only been around for a couple of centuries, and had very little warrior culture to speak of, were slowly bleeding the fight out of Japan in a island-hopping campaign centering on the Main Islands themselves. The Japanese leadership became desperate.

Beginning in 1944, Japan began suiting up young men into flight jackets, teaching them rudimentary flying skills, and putting them in airplanes with a one-way ticket to death and hopefully glory. These men became the new kamikaze, and it was hoped that by smashing themselves into American warships, they could slow America down enough to regroup and take the offensive again, or perhaps make peace on their terms. We all know how it worked out.

So why did Japan do this? Why didn't they sue for peace, and offer decent terms to the US in 1944, when they should have known better? Why kill young men for nothing? Some like to make the reason out as something unique to the Japanese national character, like the bushido warrior culture or the example above. I think of it more in terms of them not acting correctly when they knew their argument was lost.

When you get to a point in an argument where you see that the main points you are trying to make have lost their validity, there are two roads. The first, and least taken, is to say to your adversary that they have made a good point, and you concede. The second, and most used, is to get angry, and escalate the fight. This is a common impulse amongst humans, which has its roots in our evolution, which is why it is chosen more often. We fear losing more than we honor truth. (This is the root of the saying, "Might makes Right.")

Yet it is the cultures that honor truth the most that have performed the best on a global scale. I have made the point about cultures, and why some have failed or lagged, while others have become more successful and dominant, but this point is important. What manifestations of honoring truth can we see in successful cultures? The best one is the acceptance of science, both as a process, and as a body of knowledge. Cultures that honor science as a process are more self-analytical; those that honor it as a body of knowledge are less superstitious. Those that do both come closest to seeing themselves for what they are, and seeing the tasks to be faced to make the world better.

The kamikaze was a last-ditch effort of a culture trying to save itself after it knew in its heart that its argument had been lost.

So, lets go back to terrorism. On September 11, 2001, a group of young men, who had been given rudimentary flying skills, took control of some airplanes and flew them into American skyscrapers and the Pentagon. Many hailed it as a great victory for Islamic Fundementalism against the onslaught of Western culture. Was it really?

To Die For

Are liberal democracies less warlike?

There is a belief amongst governmental scientists that democracies are less inclined to be warlike, as those who are most likely to be adversely affected by war are the citizens, and if they have political power, they will use that power to avoid war. This concept first came from Immanual Kant, in his writings on democracy.

This belief has been pretty much squashed by scientific inquiry. In his book, "The Future of Freedom," Newsweek writer and political philosopher Fareed Zacharia points out that democracies are actually more warlike than their predecessors. At first glance, this revelation might seem to say that democracies are more unstable, thus more likely to engage in warlike behavior. Is this the case?

In my previous post, I made the point that freedom in Western-culture, liberal democracies is a conditional state of freedom, where the condition is that the individual is expected to moderate themselves based on the recognition of the freedoms of others. This creates a self-enforced morality in a citizen that can withstand the breakdown of governmental control. Those who grow up in a society which indoctrinates its citizens with this elevated feeling of self-worth, self-empowerment and personal responsibility tend to have greater expectations from themselves, and in the world as a whole. It also tends to blind them to how others who have not grown up in such a society view the world.

President Lyndon B. Johnson escalated the war in Vietnam, in part, because he wanted to win re-election in 1964. He needed to show to the US electorate that he was, indeed, tough on Communism, and that a Barry Goldwater administration was not necessary to preserve the world for democracy and to stop the "domino effect." In his taped phone conversation archives, he talked to one of his advisors about his misgivings about this escalation, and his reasons for doing it, knowing young people would die because of his decision. LBJ also felt that he could solve the conflict by offering the North Vietnamese the carrot of economic prosperity, via public works projects funded by American taxpayers, such as electrification projects. He could not fathom why Ho Chi Minh wouldn't see that America didn't want to dominate Vietnam, but instead wanted to free it, and make it prosperous. President George W. Bush faces a similar dilemma today in Iraq, and the same disillusionment.

The problem is that cultures who have not embraced liberalism, which means Western-style freedom, cannot understand nor believe a Westerner when they come in as a conqueror, then say they wish to liberate. The cultural beliefs in which they operate has grown under conditions that state that conquerors always seek to dominate, and those conquerors must be thrown off at all costs, no matter what they do or what they say.

In Vietnam, America did not achieve its goals, and the country fell under communism. The Vietnam War is widely regarded as America's first loss at war. I do not entirely share this assessment. In his book, "What's So Great About America," Dinesh D'Souza points out that, while those who prevailed in Vietnam got what they wished, what came about from the end of the conflict was not the outcome they were seeking. Instead of a prosperous, modern society ruled by good governors leading their people into a great future, Vietnam has fallen even further behind the rest of the world, and even its neighbors, and most people live in squalor. If America did not win that conflict, neither did the Communist Vietnamese. If the North Vietnamese had accepted LBJ's plan, it is likely that the people in Vietnam would be much more prosperous and free today.

There are examples that back this statement up. One is Japan. During World War II, the Empire of Japan sought to rule Southeast Asia with its "Co-Prosperity Sphere," which was basically a rouse to turn all the other states in the area, including China, into vassal states of the Japanese Empire by force and invasion. The US stood up to this, and imposed economic sanctions on Japan in the form of an oil embargo. Japanese leaders were enraged by this, and eventually formed the plan to force America into conceding to its will via military defeat of the US in the Pacific. The plan was not to invade America, but was to hit America hard enough and long enough to make America think it wasn't worth the cost to continue opposing Japan. It bet on the perceived weakness of a liberal democratic society in the face of a hardened, top-down, authoritarian opponent. This plan, of course, backfired, leading to Japan's humiliating defeat, and to Japan being the only country to suffer nuclear attack, not once, but twice.

Japan's leaders told their people about how cruelly the Americans would treat them if they lost the war. Combined with then cultural beliefs in Bushido and in an extreme form of nationalism, the people of Japan prepared themselves to fight to the last child against the eventual invasion, which, thankfully, never came. After the nuclear destruction of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the Emporer himself called a halt to the war, and addressed his people, telling them to prepare to "endure the unendurable."

America came in, and, in contrast to Japanese public belief, did not set up a permanent government and turn the Japanese into a vassal state of the US. What America did do was to help Japan recover from the war, and start down her current path of world-leading prosperity and peace. America does still have military bases on Japanese soil, and there are reoccurring problems of US military personnel performing horrible acts such as raping a local girl or driving drunk and killing innocent civillians, but it certainly isn't the US extracting huge yearly payments from a vassal state, and shipping Japanese girls to America to serve as "comfort women." Losing the war, and accepting the loss, was the best thing that ever happened to Japan. The same could be said for Germany.

So why did Japan accept the loss, and not form an insurgency against the American victors, like the people in Iraq are doing? Because Japan's culture is more advanced than Iraq's. Japan's culture is advanced enough to recognize its own failures, and to adapt to new ways. Instead of fighting endlessly and constantly holding a grudge, they chose to accept their fate and see what their conquerors would do. When it became obvious that their conquerors were benevolent, they took advantage of all that was offered them, and used it to build an even better society. They learned and copied from America, then applied their own innovations, and worked hard. Eventually, they built their society and economy to such a high level that only America could touch it (and many Americans wondered if they could even do that, for a while). This was possible because Japanese culture, when confronted with a major failure, has enough wisdom and humility to address the problem and adapt. It was also because American citizens, in a liberal democracy, are willing to die for it, and willing to quickly forgive their enemies.

Right now, the latest global conflict is the Global War on Terrorism. The current battlefields are Afghanistan, Iraq, Israel, and Lebanon. It can be argued that there are other places as well. Many view the test as being American resolve in defeating Al Queda and others that stand against Western values, and wish to fight any invader, no matter how benevolent. I disagree. I think the real test is if Middle-Eastern culture is as advanced as it thinks it is. So far, they are failing that test.

Freedom

What is happiness?

Happiness is a state of mind, where the person who is happy is in a state of reasonable satisfaction as to the course of their life. This may be because certain goals have been achieved, or are on track to being achieved, or may be because circumstances out of a person's control have precipitated a sense that everything is good in the world. Happiness can be brought on by material, spiritual, or emotional stimuli. The one thing about happiness that can be clearly defined amongst individuals is that it is defined from within. A person must define and accept the terms of their own happiness in order to be happy.

Think about it for a minute. Are you unhappy right now? Consider your life. Think of people who, in your own estimation, are doing "better" than you. Then think of someone who is "worse off" than you. Now, put the better-off person in your mind's eye. Picture them, in their better-off state, as unhappy with their life. Do the same with the worse-off person, except this time, make them happy. See how relative happiness is?

Ram Doss, in his book Remember, Be Here Now, makes the argument that the key to having a good life is not to overburden yourself with responsibilities, expectations and regret. Live as simply a life as you can, and do not become despondent with what comes. It is when you set up yourself with excessive expectations and false needs that you create the possibility for failure and regret.

The problem with this line of thinking is this truism: Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Let's say you follow, like Ram Doss did, the full extent of his philosophy. You would probably end up like a monk. If you avoided opportunities for the sake of avoiding regret, you would never ask that pretty girl who smiled at you out on a date. Yes, she might not have meant anything by it, and you might be embarrassed; she might be psychotic and cause you endless grief. She might also be the love of your life, and bear your children. If everybody did like Ram Doss, we'd die of in a few generations.

So happiness is best thought of as being what you define as goals to feel well with the course of your life. Sometimes, to be happy, you will need to go through periods of unhappiness. You may have to take some risks. You may also have to modify your personal goals and let the past go. Which brings us to freedom.

What is freedom? Total freedom is the ability to do whatever you want, whenever you want. See something you like? Take it. Feel like doing something? Just do it. Total freedom doesn't know what ethics and morals are. (Feel like having sex with the pretty girl mentioned above? Rape her, says Total Freedom.) Total freedom becomes chaos and evil very quickly, which is why many countries, particularly countries which distain liberal democracy, also distain freedom.

Total freedom is a dangerous thing, and most sane people do not want it. When people refer to freedom, they usually mean a conditional state of freedom. So, what is this "freedom" that we in the West define, and seem willing to fight and die for?

Thomas Jefferson talked about "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" in his Declaration of Independence. These may seem to be three distinct entities, but they are actually highly linked, and define what we in the West term "freedom." Western-style freedom is the ability to be free so long as what you are doing does not impinge on the rights of others to pursue their own happiness. This, inverted, defines the purpose of ethics, morals, and laws, and defines the purpose of government. The laws, ethics and morals of a Western-culture society is shaped around defending the right of people to have maximum freedom, while not stripping others of their rights to freedom. Thus, people in Western culture must also have strong ethics in order for the society to succeed as a whole. Without strong ethics, there is not a powerful entity above someone to prevent them from doing wrong, just a government that punishes them after the fact.

The definition of where the line is drawn on freedom is an ongoing process, which is the basis most of what people in the West gripe about. It is also much of the basis for what non-Western cultures, particularly Islamic Fundamentalists and Asian non-democracies, see as the problem with Western culture.

Islamic Fundamentalists and Asian non-democracies seek to strip individual freedom to the point to which people act morally whether they choose to or not. Where they differ is that Islamic Fundamentalists seek to return to a time where all was right with the world and right with God. Asian non-democracies seek a future in which large groups of people can life in peace and prosperity, managed by those who have proven their worth to lead, not chosen by the whims of people who don't know any better. In this, the Asian model is the better and more realistic, but both have the same problem. They force morality, with the belief that most people will not choose to act morally on their own.

This belief is wrong, and in fact, has been proven to false scientifically. In his book "Freakonomics," economist Steven D. Levitt points to a study done by a former economist who turned entrepreneur. This man decided to go into business selling bagels and cream cheese at break areas in office buildings. He worked on the honor system, and, after some experimentation, created a strategy in which he brought his wares to an office, put a sign and a wooden money box next to the bagels, and came back the next day or so to collect his money and leave more bagels. What he found was that over 90% of all people, when given a perfect opportunity to steal, didn't. (What he also found was that, of those who did steal, most were executives.) There were no cameras set up to catch people and have them shot, and no one was threatened with burial up to their neck or with the loss of hands. People just paid for what they took, because they felt it was the right thing to do.

That, in my opinion, is why Jefferson is right, and Osama bin Laden is wrong. Freedom, when tied to the responsibility of not encroaching on the freedom of others, is a force for making people more ethical. It does not make all people in a society ethical, but when people of a culture which both gives freedom and ties freedom of others to an individual's freedom get the opportunity to be evil, the overwhelming majority of those people will choose not to be evil. This makes all people in the society more free, and potentially, more happy. When a society that forces morality on its people suddenly frees its people, chaos and evil ensue, and terror and ennui reign. Want examples? Look at Russia after the breakup of the Soviet Union, and Iraq after the fall of Saddam Hussein.

What People Want

Is globalization a bad thing?

Well, if you have been laid off from your factory job because the company you worked for is moving your former job to another country, or worse, they are taking economic hits because their competitors have already done it and now they can't compete, yes, you might think so. But you also have to weigh in the fact that the person getting your old job needed work so badly, they were willing (perhaps happy) to work at a much lower pay rate, put up with worse conditions, and work longer hours than you were willing to do. Doesn't that person also deserve a job? Doesn't that person also have kids to feed? You can't really blame them.

So who do you blame? The "greedy capitalists" who run the company? Well, they are under pressure too, and must do things they don't want to do, merely to survive. You see, there is a particular dynamic that most people don't think of when it comes to understanding economics.

A few years ago, the CEO of Apple Computer, Steve Jobs, attended a convention of educators to show them the latest from his company in a keynote speech. Then he did something he rarely does, which was to answer questions from the audience. Someone asked him about the role of computers in schools. To the audiences surprise, he stated that that he no longer believed that computers had the power to revolutionize teaching, but that, as an older, wiser man, he believed the key thing was good teachers who could use the technology. He also went on to say that there was a time in his youth in which he believed in a vast conspiracy to dumb us all down with mediocre media on TV, radio, and in the movie business. He later realized, when he became a successful movie mogul himself, that there was no conspiracy. There was something worse. The media businesses were only trying to give people what they wanted.

You and I are workers. You and I are also consumers. You do your job, I do mine. You go to the store and buy things, I go to the store and buy things. As workers, we want to minimize the amount of work we do, and earn as much money in that limited time as we can, so that we can buy more things that we want and have time to do whatever it is we want to do in our free time. When we go to the store, we want the things we buy to be as cheap as we can get it, we want it to be just as we would like it to be (red, not black, automatic not manual, chocolate not vanilla), we want it in stock, and we want to take it home immediately so we can get back to that leisure time I alluded to earlier. Little did we know, we who have never met, that something I bought at the store was, in some way, created by you, and something you bought was created by me. We traded goods, via the store, and we both put pressure on each other to have our work meet up with each other's expectations.

I have a good friend who is a regional sales manager for a large manufacturer of furniture. She once told me this: "What does everyone want? Whatever the thing is, they want it free, they want it perfect, and they want it now. Those that win in the marketplace are those that come closest, with a profit, to meeting those requirements.” This can be expressed into this equation:

Free+Perfect+Now=Business Survival

So, what does this have to do with globalization?

When you made the thing that I bought at the store, part of the requirements of the thing in question was that it had to have a total F+P+N factor that could make me want it more than the things being sold by your businesses' competitors. The thing had to be cost-competitive, be very close to what I envision it to be (maybe better, with features and quality higher than I expect), and it for damn sure better be there for me to take home now. Because of this, your wages are lower than you would like, the pressure for quality and innovation at your work is higher than you feel is sustainable, and you seem to live at work and never see your kids. It would seem that I am the bane of your existence, if it were not for the fact that you held the thing you bought from me to the same standards that I did, if not more. We are each the bane of each others existence, and at the same time, blameless for it.

Because of the pressure to feed consumers what they demand, businesses feel the need to manufacture their wares in places where people are willing to work longer and harder for less money. Yet by doing so, they are relieving their customers of the very means for buying the products they wish to sell to them. This puts further pressure on lowering costs, as the consumer/workers now work at jobs that pay less and work them harder. This begins to bring down the general costs of labor in the society, and will continue to do so until the whole world pretty much evens-out in terms of the price of labor, and how much work people are willing to do in a given amount of time. This evening-out will be a long time in coming, because the difference between the pay/conditions/benefits of the average worker in the West and those in the Third World are pretty vast, and there are way more people in the Third World.

So, think about it the next time you go to Wal-Mart and by something cheaper made in China, not to somewhere else to buy something made in your own country at a higher cost with less features. You are the driving force behind globalization. Just remember, people in China have families, too.

Cultures

Why is the internet such a powerful thing? Some have called the internet the greatest invention humans have so far achieved. I tend to agree. Why?

Culture, I believe, is a set of shared beliefs and experiences which serve to bind a given group of people into believing that they are one people. Now, some have argued that the internet has actually reduced this effect amongst people, in that it facilitates a person's ability to cherry-pick the sources of knowledge that one gets so that an individual feeds themselves only what they choose to believe, rather than get a more rounded view. This causes one to be more inward. I disagree, because I see the internet itself as a binding force among people throughout the world.

Here is an exercise to prove my point. Scroll down to the bottom of this post and enter a comment. It can be gobbledygook; I don't care. Just take 1.5 seconds and do it now.

Back? Thanks for participating.

There, you have proved my point. You are a person who has somehow stumbled onto my rather generic-looking blog and you have made a connection based on something I said. You may be from anywhere, but you have found me, and, however small, we made a connection. One that would not have been possible without the internet.

Multiculturalists believe that cultures are pretty much even. To them, they are adaptations for the environment in which they exist, and that the ethics and belief systems of any particular culture cannot be judged from those not participating in that culture. This is commonly known as cultural relativism, and it is a view I do not share.

What is the problem with Multiculturalism? First off, it doesn't take into account history. Think about your studies and reading of history. Now, think of human history as an evolutionary process. Then, look at, say, European history. Can you say that the cultures existent in the 1st century A.D. are in existence today? You might be tempted to say, well, this random culture today has its roots in this particular culture in 1st century A.D. But picture taking a person from that culture and dumping them into the same geographic spot today, two thousand years later? How will this person react? How will this person cope?

The culture that person lived in then is now extinct. It has been replaced by a whole new species, that has its branches leading back to that previous culture, but those two cultures can no longer interbreed. Too much evolution has occurred.

Which leads to this point, which is the killer of Multiculturalism. Cultures evolve the same way living organisms evolve, and those who cannot face evolutionary pressure die off from it. Multiculturalists seek to preserve cultures that, despite their longevity, have failed to reach the level of progression of other, more advanced cultures. They seek to excuse the weaknesses of less advanced cultures by both explaining the weaknesses as hidden strengths, and by pointing out the deficits of the cultures that are succeeding. What they fail to do is to understand that it is the adaptability of a culture that is paramount in determining its fate. Those who are in a culture that have not made sufficient advances for continued survival should not seek to preserve their culture; they instead should seek to evolve and adapt it to the new challenges, and adopt ways and ethics similar to more successful ones.

That is what the more advanced cultures do. That is why they are more advanced.

Which leads us back to the internet. The internet is a shared cultural experience that is both global and persistent. Individuals may make of it what they will, but in a broader scope, the effect is both uniting and positive. It is breaking down barriers between cultures and providing means for rapid cultural evolution and unity. Even if you disagree, by reading this now, you prove my point.

Interactions

Are things worse then they were in the past?

Most people are inclined to agree. People point out the Global War on Terror, global warming, global dimming, the decline of the West, the ascendence of Eastern non-democracies, the extinction of species, the rise in human population, on and on. Lots of problems, with no foreseeable solutions.

So what is my answer to the question? I think things are definitely better, partially because so many people are worried about all the problems above.

Think about the last century, and all the problems faced during each decade. Think about the problems people tried to fix, then think about how we are today. You will find that most of the problems we face now are directly caused by the solution of the problems of previous generations.

Why are we having population problems? Well, because we got better at feeding ourselves, and protecting ourselves from disease, among other things. What about global warming and dimming? That is a reflection of our increased ability to defeat the ravages of climate, and the reduction of time and space in the delivery of goods, services, information, and ourselves between each other by advances in our ability to harness energy. What about the new rage of terrorism? This came about because we decided not to blow up the world during the Cold War, and freed the world from the grip of the two superpowers, which opened up new avenues to people whose radical ideas and opinions suddenly had new opportunities to express themselves violently.

What I am saying here is, we actually can and do solve the problems we often deem as insurmountable. In fact, history is full of such events. But the ones that get the most press are the utter failures, or as Jarod Diamond would say, collapses.

Here is an example of humanity recognizing a problem, and solving it in time. Remember the Y2K bug? Supposedly, enough of the world's computing infrastructure had the problem of only addressing year names with two digits (like 99 for 1999) and, because of this, at the turn on the century, lots of these computers were going to fail, because the logic in the programs running the systems couldn't handle it. When the day came, there were only sporadic problems, and most chalked it up as a false alarm.

But it wasn't a false alarm. What happened was that businesses and government agencies worldwide began requiring their vendors to be "Y2K_Compliant." Where I worked, we spent lots of money revamping and updating our systems so that we wouldn't lose customers. This occurred all over, as companies in one country required it from vendors from other countries, and the wave quickly destroyed the threat before it had a chance to come into effect. All for the price of a few new computers, and some software upgrades.

At my work, there was one computer left in house that was not Y2K compliant, and we had it phased out before 1/1/2000. We left it on to see what would actually happen. When we came back in after the holiday, it was deader than a doornail.

Lessons from this? We humans saw the problem, we openly discussed the problem, we worked as independent groups to solve the problem, and we required those who were linked to us to work on the problem too. And the problem was solved.

Do you see from this how we may develop easy-to-achieve strategies for solving all the other problems we face today? Do you see how, in history, successful cultures solved crises that killed other cultures?

The first post

Another blog on the internet. Well, this is mine, and it will be my place to vent my thoughts. Perhaps I will get some feedback, but at least I will have my say.

To those who are considering reading this blog, let me lay some guidelines about what is going on here:

1. This will not be a public diary of my day, or have a lot of personal stuff. It will primarily be a sketchpad for my thoughts on things. I may mention personal things in reference to a point I might be making, but it is not an exposé.

2. I reserve the right to use poor grammar, and poor spelling. I reserve the right to use multiple tense in a sentence, for example. This is a place for me to vent on a given issue, and perhaps provoke a thoughtful response from someone. As such, it is meant to be spontaneous, at least somewhat.

3. You can comment how you wish, even with profanities, but I will delete those who are selling stuff and are just making idiots of themselves. The latter does not imply those who disagree with me. It does imply those who need psychiatric care.

Guidelines over. That wasn't so bad, was it? The best contracts are the shortest ones, they say.

Now, on to the next post, and a real topic.